Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘House, Senate’ Category

Ron White of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour, arguably one of the funniest standup comics in America, once uttered the classic line, “You can’t fix stupid.”

The same might well be said of arrogance.

Case in point: Mitt Romney saying he was “not concerned about the very poor.” Even if true (which it probably is), it is arrogant to say it even privately, much less publicly.

Case in point: Gov. Bobby Jindal’s calling Louisiana Association of Educators Executive Director Michael Walker-Jones “arrogant” for Jones’s saying that some parents in poverty may not have the time or information to make a decision on their child’s education and suggesting that Walker-Jones resign.

That addressing poverty should be the key in seeking a solution to failing schools is a no-brainer to everyone except those who would gain political capital by bashing public education.

Walker-Jones made his comments in response to Jindal’s education reform plans that the governor unveiled before the annual meeting of the Jindal-friendly Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) as opposed to the more appropriate audience of those most affected by the proposed changes: teachers.

And therein, as Willie Shakespeare said, lies the rub.

Unveiling his plan at that particular venue was a touch of arrogance in itself, a breach of protocol. But look here for the real arrogance of this governor: http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=3197.

Here are some excerpts:

“…We are going to give (local school) districts more flexibility over their federal dollars….(and) We are going to reduce federal reporting requirements….”

One has to wonder if he has run this by the feds yet. It was Earl Long who asked civil rights opponent Leander Perez in the heat of the state’s battle over desegregation more than 50 years ago, “What’re you gonna do now, Leander? The feds got the A-bomb!”

Jindal, in attempting to apply the principle of teacher tenure to a hypothetical company in the private sector, said there is no accountability for job performance and “after three years of this, if they have survived, they are given lifetime job protection. Short of selling drugs in the workplace or beating up one of the business’s clients, they can never be fired.”

Implying that teachers can only be fired for selling drugs at school is arrogance in its purest form—and stupid beyond belief. By his standards, it must be fair to say that now that he has been re-elected, he can only be removed if he sells drugs in the House or Senate chambers. Certainly, that is a far-fetched and most unreasonable analogy—but no more so than his own remarks.

Case in point: “We are going to create a system that pays teachers for doing a good job instead of for the length of time they have been breathing.”

Does anyone know of a single instance in the history of mankind where someone has been paid for the length of time he or she has been breathing? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

We’re talking sheer arrogance here.

Perhaps Jindal should resign after making such an ass of himself.

In fairness, he did make one accurate comment to LABI: “Our system today often crushes talented teachers and it makes their jobs harder, not easier.”

At least he’s spot-on with that assessment.

Of course Jindal’s education reform proposals are drawn almost exclusively from the American Legislative Exchange Council’s sweeping agenda but it no doubt also draws heavily on a study done by Raj Chetty and John Friedman of Harvard and Jonah Rockoff of Columbia University.

Without going into too much detail, that study concludes that good teachers cause students to get higher test scores, which in turn lead to higher lifetime earnings.

Well, duh. How much was that grant? Bet we could’ve arrived at that conclusion for less.

But wait. Let’s look a bit more closely at the specifics of that study that has become the mantra of reform-minded governors like our own.

“Replacing a poor teacher with an average one would raise a single classroom’s lifetime earnings by about $266,000,” the New York Times quoted the study as saying.

Wow. $266,000? Really?

But let’s break that down a little further. Let’s say for simplicity that the average classroom has 26.6 kids and on average, those kids will become adults who will work, say, from age 25 to age 65. Forty years. So, we have $266,000 divided by 26.6, divided by 40 years. That comes to a whopping….$250 per year per student, about $20 per month or $4.81 per week.

But for all of Jindal’s disdain for teachers—Public Service Commission Chairman Foster Campbell recently opined that someone must have broken Jindal’s pencils when he was in school—and public education, nothing can quite compare to the arrogance, ignorance and convoluted logic of one Alabama state senator.

State Sen. Shadrack McGill (R-Woodville) recently spoke to a prayer breakfast in Fort Payne at which he justified a 62 percent pay raise for legislators while at the same time saying raising teacher pay could lead to less-qualified educators, according to the Fort Payne Times-Journal.

On the face of it, given his Biblical first name and the asinine statement, most readers might reasonably conclude that the story was straight out of the Onion, an on-line parody of news events. But the story is real and the speaker’s remarks were sincere if misinformed, misguided, and laced with idiocy.

The legislative increase, to be fair to McGill, was passed in 2007, before his election. It was approved by voice vote and later in an override of then-Gov. Bob Riley’s veto.

McGill said the pay raise—from $30,710 to $49,500 for legislators’ part time positions—better rewards lawmakers and makes them less susceptible to lobbyist influence.

“That (the old salary) played into the corruption, guys, big time,” he said. “You had your higher-ranking legislators that were connected with the lobbyists making up in the millions of dollars. They weren’t worried about that $30,000 salary they were getting,” he said, adding that legislators have to pay for their expenses out of pocket.

Legislators need “to make enough that (they) can say no, in regards to temptation,” he said.

Well, Mr. McGill, it may come as a surprise to you to know that members of Congress pull in about $180,000 per year and they are still very much susceptible to being swayed by lobbyists. Only a fool would argue that a salary of $49,500 would keep lobbyists at bay.

It may also come as a shock to you to know that we all pay expenses out of pocket—especially teachers, who regularly spend their own money for classroom resources.

For pure audacity, McGill, who home-schools his children, went on to say, “If you double what you’re paying (teachers), you know what’s going to happen? It’s a Biblical principle. If you double a teacher’s pay scale, you’ll attract people who aren’t called to teach.

“And these teachers that are called to teach, regardless of the pay scale, they would teach. It’s just in them to do. It’s the ability that God give ‘em. And there are also some teachers, it wouldn’t matter how much you would pay them, they would still perform to the same capacity.

“If you don’t keep that in balance, you’re going to attract people who are not called, who don’t need to be teaching our children. So, everything has a balance.”

First, of all, Mr. McGill, please direct us to the scripture in the Bible that admonishes us not to increase teacher pay. Please provide us with the specific chapter and verse.

And taking your logic to its ultimate conclusion, preachers should not be paid; it’s a calling. Instead of paying attorneys $250 per hour, they should accept $25 per hour since it’s a calling. And why pay firemen at all? Let ‘em volunteer. Same thing for police officers, judges and social workers.

Oh, and let’s not overlook legislators. It’s a calling, so let them forfeit all pay in exchange for the privilege of serving.

There you have it, folks. The contempt for teachers and public education, simply because they’re easy targets, is the most current and most popular trend in America. So, c’mon, jump on the bandwagon. The kids? They’re just an afterthought. It’s political hay and the harvest is ripe.

But one last thought: if you can read this, don’t forget to thank a teacher.

Read Full Post »

“We have significant concerns that premature disclosure of the report will prejudice the (solicitation for offers) and negotiations process. This is not a matter of secrecy, but a basic component of our ability to make decisions that are within our purview, to direct the integrity of a successful procurement.”

–Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater, in a letter to Senate President Joel Chaisson last June 8 in which he attempted to justify the admininstration’s refusal to provide a copy of the Chaffe & Associates report on the Office of Group Benefits to legislators. Likewise, Rainwater is now withholding the contents of the state’s contract with Morgan Keegan from the OGB Policy and Planning Board.

Read Full Post »

State employees who were blindsided by Gov. Jindal’s announcement last week of proposed sweeping changes to the state’s retirement system have only themselves to blame; they simply haven’t been paying attention.

It’s been a long time coming and while the jury is still out on what will and what won’t be approved in the upcoming legislative session or what is or is not fair to longtime state employees is irrelevant at this point. There is a much larger problem to be addressed: a problem of nearly $6.5 billion in unfunded liabilities for the state employee retirement system, to be precise.

This is an issue that has been punted repeatedly by legislators past and present who were unwilling to make a hard decision and now change is no longer on the far horizon: it is upon us and it is inevitable.

As far back as 1989 a constitutional amendment was passed by the legislature and approved by voters to amortize the state’s unfunded accrued liability (UAL) payoff over 40 years on a level payment plan (adjusted for inflation and payroll growth projections).

That amendment, however, had one fatal flaw: it allowed the legislature to change the payment schedule by statute. One may as well have turned a fox loose in the henhouse or a child in a candy store.

The latter may be more appropriate since the legislature has a greater propensity to act like the adolescent when the state coffers are rife with revenue. Lawmakers wasted no time in tinkering with the schedule in order that they might fund local projects in the annual budget. The folks back home, after all, don’t care about what’s going in Baton Rouge as long as they get their community centers and golf courses funded.

Now, as we approach the 2029 deadline imposed by that amendment, the state is staring down the barrel of huge balloon payments.

Whether one likes Jindal or not, the problem with the state’s UAL for the various pensions for employees, teachers, school employees and police is no more his doing than the state’s next governor, whoever that may be.

But neither was the problem caused by state workers who now are being called upon to change their retirement plans in mid-stream to accommodate those legislators who in past years shirked their fiscal responsibilities in order to more easily facilitate their own political careers. It is patently unfair to ask rank and file state employees to pay the penalty for past legislative moral malfeasance.

That’s not to say that Jindal has the right solutions in his proposals; we have no way of knowing that at this point. It’s just that it is now his problem to wrestle with in the upcoming legislative session.

It is not likely that Jindal or his staff conceived of these reforms independently.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative coalition of state legislatures, includes the reform of state pensions as one of its “Tools to Control Costs and Improve Government Efficiency” on its state budget reform web page: http://www.alec.org/publications/state-budget-reform-toolkit/.

Other tools specifically recommended by ALEC include the restructuring of state retiree health care plans, delaying “automatic” pay increases, adopting a state hiring freeze, embracing the expanded use of privatization and competitive contracting, establishing a state privatization and efficiency council and selling state assets.

Any of those sound vaguely familiar?

Several corporate members of ALEC have been identified as major contributors to Jindal’s political campaigns.

Of the 126 bills already pre-filed in the House and Senate as of Tuesday, 84, or fully two-thirds deal in some fashion or another with retirement. The breakdown shows that 36 retirement bills have been filed in the House and 48 in the Senate.

Some of the bills in both chambers are different versions of the same proposals, so some of the duplicate bills will be withdrawn before consideration.

Many of those deal with local clerks of court, assessors, sheriffs and municipal employees but just as many—or more—deal specifically with state employees.

Jindal said for now he is addressing only state employees and not teachers, school employees or state police.

Many of his proposals break long-standing promises made to state employees relative to retirement benefits and eligibility.

HB 53 by Rep. Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell), for example, stipulates that employees hired prior to June 30, 2006 may retire after 10 years and upon attaining age 67. Those hired after June 30, 2006 may retire after five years and attaining age 67.

The present law allows a state worker to retire after 10 years at age 60.

HB 56, also by Pearson, chairman of the House Retirement Committee, would increase employees’ retirement contributions from 7.5 percent to 10.5 percent for those employed on or before June 30, 2006 and from 8 percent to 11 percent for those employed on or after July 1, 2006.

But perhaps the bill that would sting the worst is SB 17 and SB 26, both by freshman Sen. Barrow Peacock (R-Bossier City). Each of those bills would change state pensions from a defined benefit to a defined contribution.

That means that instead of employees being guaranteed a set pension based on the current formula of three-year average salary times 2.5 percent times years of service, employees would contribute a predetermined amount to retirement with no guarantee of benefits. Such a program, which would react to market conditions, is similar to the 401K plan common in the private sector.

One bill, HB 55 by Pearson, would alter the formula for computing retirement from a three-year average salary to a five-year average, thus reducing in theory, at least, the employee’s monthly retirement check.

HB 61, also by Pearson, would require a one-time, lump-sum payment to employees with five or more years’ credit upon retirement. The employee may opt to take the lump sum or leave his account balance with the system and draw an annuity.

Because state employees do not contribute to, nor do they qualify for, social security, their retirement income would hinge solely on the uncertainty of their state retirement.

Read Full Post »

So far Gov. Bobby Jindal, flush from his re-election last fall, has chosen two pro-business groups to announce sweeping reform efforts for his second term, unveiling his education reform at the annual meeting of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and proposed state employee pension plan changes to the Baton Rouge Rotary Club.

Selecting friendly venues for major announcements seems to be the preferred method for Jindal who wisely eschewed teachers groups and state employee gatherings to unveil his agenda. Louisiana Public Service Commission (PCS) Chairman Foster Campbell observed that had he revealed his proposed pension program to state employees, “they’d have booed him out of the room.”

And while he has yet to address state corrections, you can be certain he has state prison privatization squarely in his crosshairs. All those private prison companies did not contribute to his election campaign just for the fun of it.

Only last Wednesday, the Florida Senate Budget Committee, at the urging of Jindal’s fellow Republican Gov. Rick Scott, passed a bill to privatize 29 South Florida prisons—to turn them over to for-profit companies that would be required to produce cost cuts of 7 percent below the cost of state-run facilities.

But there’s a more ominous undercurrent to that bill that gives the Florida governor far-reaching powers to expand privatization to other agencies. Under the latest proposals, an agency would not have to report its privatization of a program until after a contract is signed. The bill also will eliminate the legal requirement to perform a cost-benefit analysis before privatizing any governmental function.

Doing away with the cost-benefit analysis reveals in no uncertain terms just how little concern Scott and his allies have about real savings. Don’t for a minute think that Jindal is not in constant contact with Scott on that particular nuance. After all, Jindal did travel to Florida to campaign for Scott’s election. And don’t for one minute think that Jindal is concerned about savings or of the welfare of state employees. It’s all about money—campaign money.

Jindal’s second effort at privatization is a certainty but it is nevertheless worthwhile to take a look at the dollars and cents of privatizing prisons.

Of the 50 states, Louisiana sits alone at the top with the highest prison incarceration rate in the nation at 858 per 100,000. Mississippi is second at 749 per 100,000.

In absolute numbers, Louisiana ranked 11th in the nation in actual prison population in 2007 (37,341) even though the state was 25th in population. Those numbers likely have only increased in the past five years. From 1990 to 2004, Louisiana’s prison population nearly doubled, increasing by 98.6 percent, from 18,600 to 36,900, federal records show.

The U.S., with more than two million prisoners, ranks highest in the world, nearly half-a-million more than number-two China. The U.S. also has the highest per capita number of prisoners with 715 per 100,000. Russia is a distant second with 584 prisoners per 100,000 population.

So, if the U.S. has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world and Louisiana has the highest rate in the U.S. that gives Louisiana the highest rate of imprisonment in the world.

So, what does all this mean in the terms of costs to house, feed and care for all these prisoners? That, after all, would appear on the surface to be the consideration uppermost in Jindal’s mind: saving the state beaucoup money.

In August of 2011, the Vera Institute of Justice, with offices in Washington, D.C., New Orleans and New York City, conducted a survey to determine the total cost of prisons in fiscal year 2010. Thirty-nine of the 50 states responded to the survey which provided some rather interesting figures. That cost is computed on the basis of what the state spends over and above the amounts budgeted for prisons. The additional costs include, but are not limited to, pension liabilities, medical care, inmate education and training, capital construction, legal and administrative costs.

Louisiana had a per prisoner cost of $17,486 in 2010 ($47.91 per day), fourth lowest of the 39 responding states. By comparison, Kentucky’s annual cost per prisoner was $14,603 and Alabama’s was $17,285.

Louisiana’s annual cost per prisoner paled in comparison to several other states. Florida ($20,553), Georgia ($21,039), Texas ($21,390, Missouri ($22,350), Arkansas ($24,391), Arizona ($24,895), Ohio ($25,814), and North Carolina ($29,965) all had higher annual per-prisoner costs.

But five other states’ annual costs per prisoner really soared. Illinois had an annual per-prisoner cost of $38,268, followed by Pennsylvania ($42,339), California ($47,421), New Jersey ($54,865) and New York ($60,076), nearly three-and-one-half higher than Louisiana’s.

The one statistic that Jindal is almost certain to roll out when he makes his inevitable push to privatize Louisiana’s prisons will be the cost per taxpayer. So, let’s take a look at those numbers as well.

Of the 39 responding states, 21 did in fact have lower costs than Louisiana’s per-taxpayer cost of $698.40 per annum, putting the state almost squarely in the middle of the pack. In North Dakota, for example, the per-taxpayer cost was a paltry $58.10. Others, like Oklahoma ($453.40), Alabama ($462.50) and Missouri ($680.50) were closer to Louisiana’s figures.

But then there are states like Arizona ($1,003.60), Georgia ($1,129.90), North Carolina ($1,204.70), Michigan ($1,268), Ohio ($1,315.50), New Jersey ($1,416.70), Illinois ($1,743.20), Pennsylvania ($2,044.30), Florida ($2,082.50), Texas ($3,306.40), New York ($3,558.70), and California ($7,932.40).

Let those last few numbers sink in: Florida’s annual per-taxpayer cost of housing and caring for prisoners is three times Louisiana’s cost. The yearly per-taxpayer rate for Texas is 4.7 times Louisiana’s rate and New York’s rate is five times Louisiana’s per-taxpayer rate. And then there is California where the per-taxpayer rate of $7,932.40 per year is a whopping 11.3 times that of Louisiana.

So, just how will Jindal sell his economic plan for prisons when so many states have both higher per-prisoner and per-taxpayer costs associated with housing, feeding and caring for prisoners?

That should be the number-one question for anyone to ask of Jindal who by now is so caught up in his own brilliance as to think himself infallible. How do you propose to save money when the state’s costs are already a mere fraction of many other states? It’s a question that demands an answer.

The answer, of course, is for the private companies to cut costs by slashing salaries and benefits, reducing the number of guards and taking a page from the charter school playbook: take only the best of the crop (best being a relative term).

A betting man could make a few bucks by making a wager that sick prisoners requiring expensive medical care and violent prisoners requiring tighter security (read: more guards) will not be taken by the private operators. Those will be left to the state’s care. Bet on it.

Below are the rankings in terms of per-prisoner cost and per-taxpayer cost for the 39 responding states:

ANNUAL PER PRISONER COST (BY STATE)
Kentucky $14,603
Indiana $14,823
Alabama $17,285
Louisiana $17,486
Kansas $18,207
Oklahoma $18,467
Idaho $19,545
Florida $20,553
Nevada $20,656
Georgia $21,039
Texas $21,390
Missouri $22,350
Arkansas $24,391
Arizona $24,895
Virginia $25,129
Ohio $25,814
West Virginia $26,498
Michigan $28,117
Utah $29,349
North Carolina $29,965
Montana $30,227
Iowa $32,925
Delaware $32,967
New Hampshire $34,080
Nebraska $35,950
Wisconsin $37,994
Illinois $38,268
Maryland $38,383
North Dakota $39,271
Minnesota $41,364
Pennsylvania $42,339
California $47,421
Rhode Island $49,133
Vermont $49,502
Connecticut $50,262
Washington State $51,775
New Jersey $54,865
Maine $56,269
New York $60,076

ANNUAL PER TAXPAYER COST (BY STATE)

North Dakota $56.20
Montana $76.00
New Hampshire $80.30
Vermont $111.30
Maine $132.90
Idaho $144.70
Kansas $158.20
Nebraska $163.30
West Virginia $169.20
Rhode Island $172.10
Utah $186.00
Delaware $215.20
Iowa $276.00
Nevada $282.90
Kentucky $311.70
Arkansas $326.10
Minnesota $395.30
Oklahoma $453.40
Alabama $462.50
Indiana $569.50
Missouri $680.50
Louisiana $698.40
Virginia $748.60
Maryland $836.20
Washington State $838.40
Wisconsin $874.40
Connecticut $929.40
Arizona $1,003.60
Georgia $1,129.90
North Carolina $1,204.70
Michigan $1,268.00
Ohio $1,315.50
New Jersey $1,416.70
Illinois $1,743.20
Pennsylvania $2,055.30
Florida $2,082.50
Texas $3,306.40
New York $3,558.70
California $7,932.40

Read Full Post »

If one thinks Gov. Bobby Jindal, that paradigm of virtue, is not capable of vindictive reprisals in order to advance his political agenda, one need look no further than the 2009 standoff between Jindal and the State Civil Service Commission.

The short version of this story reveals Jindal to be as capable of no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners dirty fighting as any politician anywhere, at any level.

The story actually begins in 2006 in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and about two years before Jindal took office.

That is when the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) was created to deal with emergencies like hurricanes and oil spills, among other things.

Initially, GOHSEP’s staff was assigned to the governor’s office but then the legislature decided that current and future GOHSEP employees would be unclassified civil servants. They previously were unclassified as part of the state’s Military Department (National Guard).

Barry Erwin, president of the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL), pointed out that unclassified employees work at the pleasure of the hiring authority, meaning an entire agency of unclassified workers would be subject to a governor’s patronage.

While unclassified employees don’t enjoy the job protection that classified employees do, neither are they bound by the same pay classifications. That means their salaries can—and are—set at considerably higher pay levels.

On average, unclassified employees make about $20,000 per year than their classified counterparts.

Moreover, unclassified employees are not required to meet strict earning guidelines, job qualifications or rules for promotion as do classified workers.

The Civil Service Commission attempted to learn what some of those GOHSEP salaries were and promptly met with claims of executive privilege. The commission, concerned at the proposal to change 425 GOHSEP employees from classified to unclassified and offended at Jindal’s resistance to transparency, filed suit to block the move.

While the lawsuit was pending, Jindal’s forces went into action. Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe) promptly filed SB-209 calling for a constitutional amendment to provide “that the director, deputy director and all employees of (GOHSEP) are included in the unclassified service of the state civil service.”

The Civil Service Commission’s concerns notwithstanding, the bill passed the Senate by a unanimous 39-0 vote. The House likewise approved the measure by a 72-11 vote with 21 members not voting.

Jindal signed the bill as Act 538 and the matter was placed on the ballot for Oct. 2, 2010. Voters subsequently approved the measure by the narrowest of margins: 306,106—283,185 (51.9 percent to 48.1 percent) and the controversy appeared settled in favor of increased power for the governor.

But not so fast.

Not to be trifled with, Jindal went on the offensive against the Civil Service Commission and about 62,000 state classified employees. His attack dog this time was Rep. John Schroder (R-Abita Springs).

Schroder filed five separate bills in the 2010 session each of which had civil service directly in its crosshairs.

The crown jewel of those five bills was HB-753 which would have called for a constitutional amendment to abolish the State Civil Service Commission and the Department of Civil Service, effective Jan. 9, 2012.

The other bills included:

• HB-752, which called for a constitutional amendment to grant the legislature sole authority to provide for pay increases for persons in state service;

• HB-754, which called for a constitutional amendment to prohibit pay increases to persons in state service when there is a budget deficit;

• HB-755, which called for a constitutional amendment to require the legislature to determine prior to each fiscal year if a pay increase may be granted to persons in state service and if so, the manner and amount of the increase;

• HB-757, which would have required reports regarding employees of the Department of Civil Service and that copies of those reports be sent to the Senate President and Speaker of the House.

Neither of the bills made it out of committee but that doesn’t mean that they won’t be back on the legislature’s calendar next spring.

With another major budget deficit looming in the not so distant future, it’s probable that state employees will be denied pay raises for a third consecutive year.

But of more concern should be a resurrection of efforts to abolish Civil Service, a move, if successful, would leave state employees with no job security and subject to political pressure in order to keep their jobs, just like the old days of Huey Long, the spoils system and the deduct box.

And don’t dismiss the possibility; Jindal has a long memory.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »